kick play

[RazorRef]

Just in case there are any college guys reading this, don't get confused. The NCAA rule is that if an B (R) player is blocked into a kick by A (K) that has crossed the neutral zone, he is deemed to NOT have touched the ball.

6-1-4a, 6-2-4a

[MJT]

Originally Posted by RazorRef

Just in case there are any college guys reading this, don't get confused. The NCAA rule is that if an B (R) player is blocked into a kick by A (K) that has crossed the neutral zone, he is deemed to NOT have touched the ball.

6-1-4a, 6-2-4a

Yes, and I personally like that rule better! I don't think it should count as being touched at all since they were forced into the touching. It would be nice if they could take a FKOOB's if they want.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MJT

Yes, and I personally like that rule better! I don't think it should count as being touched at all since they were forced into the touching.

But there'd still be no incentive for K to block R into the ball when K could try for the ball themselves. In the latter case, if the ball goes OOB following the touch by K beyond the NZ in NCAA (last I knew), it's not a free kick OOB either. (Last touching by K is significant in NFL rules, however.) So why should R have penalty options for getting forced into a ball that goes OOB, when they wouldn't have such options if K touched it themselves beyond the NZ?

Look at the incentives. Suppose the free kicked ball is rolling near a sideline between the goal line & R's restraining line. Under the rule you propose, R has the incentive, instead of playing the ball themselves, to station themselves just in front & in-field of the ball, blocking K from recovery and secure in the knowledge that if the ball doesn't roll out of bounds untouched on its own, K might force R into the ball and likely cause it to go OOB. Don't you want R to have the incentive to play the free kick themselves rather than camping over it like that?

Robert

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But there'd still be no incentive for K to block R into the ball when K could try for the ball themselves. In the latter case, if the ball goes OOB following the touch by K beyond the NZ in NCAA (last I knew), it's not a free kick OOB either. (Last touching by K is significant in NFL rules, however.) So why should R have penalty options for getting forced into a ball that goes OOB, when they wouldn't have such options if K touched it themselves beyond the NZ?

Look at the incentives. Suppose the free kicked ball is rolling near a sideline between the goal line & R's restraining line. Under the rule you propose, R has the incentive, instead of playing the ball themselves, to station themselves just in front & in-field of the ball, blocking K from recovery and secure in the knowledge that if the ball doesn't roll out of bounds untouched on its own, K might force R into the ball and likely cause it to go OOB. Don't you want R to have the incentive to play the free kick themselves rather than camping over it like that?

Robert

You are not understanding what I am saying. I am saying, if R is being blocked and gets blocked into the ball and that ball untouched by another player goes OOB's, I think it should still be considered a FKOOB's.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MJT

You are not understanding what I am saying. I am saying, if R is being blocked and gets blocked into the ball and that ball untouched by another player goes OOB's, I think it should still be considered a FKOOB's.

No, I understood you, but you seem not to have understood me. I was explaining why I wouldn't like that considered a FKOOB.

[MJT]

Ok, but you said "R has the incentive, instead of playing the ball themselves, to station themselves just in front & in-field of the ball, blocking K from recovery and secure in the knowledge that if the ball doesn't roll out of bounds untouched on its own, K might force R into the ball and likely cause it to go OOB. Don't you want R to have the incentive to play the free kick themselves rather than camping over it like that?"

This is the part that I cannot see happening. I couldn't see R keeping K from the ball instead of fielding the ball themselves.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MJT

Ok, but you said "R has the incentive, instead of playing the ball themselves, to station themselves just in front & in-field of the ball, blocking K from recovery and secure in the knowledge that if the ball doesn't roll out of bounds untouched on its own, K might force R into the ball and likely cause it to go OOB. Don't you want R to have the incentive to play the free kick themselves rather than camping over it like that?"

This is the part that I cannot see happening. I couldn't see R keeping K from the ball instead of fielding the ball themselves.

Depends on the penalty for FKOOB.

This is a commonplace in sports -- perverse incentives on play near the sidelines. Many times it pays for one team to simply obstruct rather than playing the ball.

There's another solution: penalize only for free kicks that go out of bounds without bouncing in bounds.

Robert